241–250 of 312 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having to set up a new account, complete with a new username and password, is by itself sufficient to drive away a staggering amount of adoption / conversions according to several UX studies.
Gitea supports "log in with GitHub" if the site-owner has enabled it; and the UI is immediately familiar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pay them with what money? How are they going to earn anything? Meanwhile, they would also face arrest for ignoring US law.
Doesn't GitHub pay staff? I'm saying to take the whole operation into anonymous space. Or replace it with one that is. It could be Tor, or perhaps Loki, based on what little I know about it so far. And pay with cryptocurrencies. People who work anonymously enough can't be arrested. For example, see http://cryptohippie.net/AnonAdmin.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you believe that trade regulations such as ITAR apply to publicly-available open source software? I do not¹, and it appears that your employees do not believe this either. GitHub is currently hosting multiple GPS implementations² that are clearly against this line in your ToS, in addition to also being against ITAR by not implementing speed limits for missiles: "GitHub may not be used for purposes prohibited under…
> Even if it was ITAR-compliant, the limits could easily be removed as it is open source software. To someone willing to spend more than a couple minutes, the fact that it's open source is quite meaningless.
Changing a couple lines of well-documented source code in an open source project before compiling is arguably a much lower bar to pass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even if it was ITAR-compliant, the limits could easily be removed as it is open source software. To someone willing to spend more than a couple minutes, the fact that it's open source is quite meaningless.
While it is definitely possible to reverse-engineer and modify the software/firmware of existing proprietary GPS systems, I'd argue that the distinction between this and changing an open source project is not meaningless. Changing a couple lines of well-documented source code in an open source project before compiling is arguably a much lower bar to pass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, I have attempted to look it up myself, and unlike Github, GitLab doesn't appear to allow me a transparent view into their offerings in action without signing up to start my free trial. Which is a lot more engagement than Github requires of someone just trying to discover capabilities.
https://about.gitlab.com/features/ From what it looks like, the free trial is similar to GitHub‘s paid account but you can use the extra tools for free for the duration of the trial. Seems as transparent as GitHub. Never used GitLab outside of running it myself but I think hosting OS software on GitLab.com is free.
You don't even need the trial. Just press "Register" to get the standard login page for GitLab.com. From there you can sign in with GitHub (or make an account) and explore the platform for yourself.
The trial is just for the paid subscriptions. The normal, free account has access to all of the platform's Gold features as long as the repos in question are public (or internal, just not private).
> Yes! As part of GitLab’s commitment to open source, Gold project-level features are available for free to public projects on GitLab.com. Gold group-level features, however, still require a subscription, for reasons explained here[0]. For organizations interested in free Gold features for groups, we also offer free Gold and Ultimate to educational institutions and open source projects[1].
Note that public repos inside a public group do have access to Gold level features. It's just the group level features that are restricted.
[0] https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/#gitlabcom-subscri...
[1] https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2018/06/05/gitlab-ultimate-and...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't GitHub pay staff? I'm saying to take the whole operation into anonymous space. Or replace it with one that is. It could be Tor, or perhaps Loki, based on what little I know about it so far. And pay with cryptocurrencies. People who work anonymously enough can't be arrested. For example, see http://cryptohippie.net/AnonAdmin.html
So you are just simply advocating for living a criminal life. Got it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't GitHub pay staff? I'm saying to take the whole operation into anonymous space. Or replace it with one that is. It could be Tor, or perhaps Loki, based on what little I know about it so far. And pay with cryptocurrencies. People who work anonymously enough can't be arrested. For example, see http://cryptohippie.net/AnonAdmin.html
So you are just simply advocating for living a criminal life. Got it.
What's criminal and what's human rights depends on ones perspective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can use any old git repo as your main source, and "dump" every commit into github for visibility. Any issues and pull request into the github site are replied by an automatic answer to use some other site.
Not a bad idea. But I haven’t seen it work in practice with strong usability. The fact of the matter is, if you ask developers where they discovered software, “GitHub” would rank higher than GitLab. This is due not only to higher traffic numbers, but also more features revolving around discoverability. GitLab could build those features too, but it’s difficult to overcome the network effect driving GitHub’s momentum.…
The Linux kernel does this (with a mailing list, no less!). I agree with the main thrust of your post and I suppose strong usability is arguable but I thought it would be good to throw out a (very) notable example regardless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And is the only country to have ever used such weapons in wartime, and on a civilian population, nonetheless.
I suppose you'd prefer that, instead, the entirety of Japan would have had to be bombed into oblivion using non-nuclear weapons, not to mention the extra loss of life on the Allied side that would have almost certainly occurred during a more traditional invasion that would have likely been necessary. War sucks, and there are rarely good choices; it's nearly always going to be a choice between something truly awful an…